Executive Summary
• The public consultation generated over 85 000 contributions, which illustrates a great
interest in EU tobacco control policy. Citizen contributions accounted for 96% of the
survey response. Almost 2/3 of the contributions were from just two Member States: Italy
and Poland.
• It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the outcome of the public consultation
procedure. In general, opinions varied significantly between and also within categories of
respondents. Arguments provided by respondents in the ‘free text’ sections of the
consultation present a variety of different justifications for policy action.
• Those who were in favour of extending the scope of the Directive to all tobacco and
nicotine products argued that these products present hazards to public health. Some
respondents suggested nicotine products should be regulated under pharmaceutical
legislation. Others arguing against the extension of the scope raised concerns about the
lack of scientific evidence and claimed that the use of many novel forms of tobacco and
nicotine products are healthier than cigarette use.
• Respondents in favour of keeping the ban on oral tobacco (snus) or banning all smokeless
tobacco argued that, although some of these products are considered ‘reduced risk’ tobacco
products, oral tobacco is harmful to health. . Those who were in favour of lifting the
current ban on oral tobacco, referred to snus as a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking
and a potentially effective way to quit smoking.
• Respondents in favour of mandatory pictorial warnings and plain or generic tobacco
packaging stressed that these measures would eliminate the advertising and marketing
effects utilized by the industry and will provide equal protection of European citizens.
According to the opponents of these measures, implementing mandatory pictorial
warnings and generic packaging would have little to no impact on the uptake of smoking,
especially among youth. Opponents also expressed legal concerns about intellectual
property and suggested that generic and plain packaging could increase illicit trade in
tobacco.
• Most of the respondents were in favour of a common compulsory reporting format,
underlining that it would facilitate the comparison and analysis of ingredients information.
• Respondents in favour of regulating ingredients said that restricting certain additives
alongside sweet, fruity, floral, and candy flavours could prevent young people from taking
up smoking. Additionally, these actions would have the added benefit of facilitating intra-
EU trade by synthesizing current ingredients regulation in Member States. Opponents, on
the contrary, said that ingredients and additives do little to influence youth uptake and that
a regulation of ingredients could discriminate against certain varieties and brands of
tobacco.
• Respondents in favour of banning the sale of tobacco products over the internet and from
vending machines indicated that these actions would reduce the advertisement of tobacco
products through these channels and better restrict young people’s access to tobacco
products. It was also argued that a tobacco display ban at the point of sale would limit
youth smoking and deter tobacco purchasing by adults. Opponents raised concerns about a
lack of scientific evidence, market difficulties for new, unadvertised products and
excessive intervention in consumers’ right to product choice.
Executive Summary• The public consultation generated over 85 000 contributions, which illustrates a greatinterest in EU tobacco control policy. Citizen contributions accounted for 96% of thesurvey response. Almost 2/3 of the contributions were from just two Member States: Italyand Poland.• It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the outcome of the public consultationprocedure. In general, opinions varied significantly between and also within categories ofrespondents. Arguments provided by respondents in the ‘free text’ sections of theconsultation present a variety of different justifications for policy action.• Those who were in favour of extending the scope of the Directive to all tobacco andnicotine products argued that these products present hazards to public health. Somerespondents suggested nicotine products should be regulated under pharmaceuticallegislation. Others arguing against the extension of the scope raised concerns about thelack of scientific evidence and claimed that the use of many novel forms of tobacco andnicotine products are healthier than cigarette use.• Respondents in favour of keeping the ban on oral tobacco (snus) or banning all smokelesstobacco argued that, although some of these products are considered ‘reduced risk’ tobaccoproducts, oral tobacco is harmful to health. . Those who were in favour of lifting thecurrent ban on oral tobacco, referred to snus as a healthier alternative to tobacco smokingand a potentially effective way to quit smoking.• Respondents in favour of mandatory pictorial warnings and plain or generic tobaccopackaging stressed that these measures would eliminate the advertising and marketingeffects utilized by the industry and will provide equal protection of European citizens.According to the opponents of these measures, implementing mandatory pictorialwarnings and generic packaging would have little to no impact on the uptake of smoking,especially among youth. Opponents also expressed legal concerns about intellectualproperty and suggested that generic and plain packaging could increase illicit trade intobacco.• Most of the respondents were in favour of a common compulsory reporting format,underlining that it would facilitate the comparison and analysis of ingredients information.• Respondents in favour of regulating ingredients said that restricting certain additivesalongside sweet, fruity, floral, and candy flavours could prevent young people from takingup smoking. Additionally, these actions would have the added benefit of facilitating intra-EU trade by synthesizing current ingredients regulation in Member States. Opponents, onthe contrary, said that ingredients and additives do little to influence youth uptake and thata regulation of ingredients could discriminate against certain varieties and brands oftobacco.• Respondents in favour of banning the sale of tobacco products over the internet and fromvending machines indicated that these actions would reduce the advertisement of tobaccoproducts through these channels and better restrict young people’s access to tobaccoproducts. It was also argued that a tobacco display ban at the point of sale would limityouth smoking and deter tobacco purchasing by adults. Opponents raised concerns about alack of scientific evidence, market difficulties for new, unadvertised products andexcessive intervention in consumers’ right to product choice.
Download PDF : consultation_report_en
